| N.Y. App. Div. | Jan 15, 1909
Judgment affirmed, with costs. All concurred, except McLennan, P. J., who dissented upon the ground that the agreement, if made, was in violation of the Interstate Commerce Act
See 24 U. S. Stat. at Large, 379, chap. 104, § 1 et seq.; 25 id. 855, chap. 382; 33 id. 847, chap. 708. Since amd. by 34 id. 584 et seq., chap. 3591; Id. 838, Res. 47.—[Rep.